Thread Tools
Mar 07, 2018, 04:38 PM
Registered User
Discussion

Remote ID and Tracking to Include Model Aircraft


Folks. I am spending this week at the FAA UAS Symposium taking notes. Here's a link to my blog. -Remote ID will be mandated for model aircraft.

https://www.catalyst-go.com/thinking...ft-the-station

UAS Remote ID: ALL aboard! The Train Has Left the Station

Regulators do a bad job of head faking, so they don’t. But, they do telegraph their moves with startling clarity. The audience saw this in action during FAA’s 2018 UAS Symposium in Baltimore on the subject of UAS remote identification. That four senior FAA executives championed the basic premise that drones should be identified and tracked should come as a surprise to no one. But what audience members heard suggests that this potential requirement will apply to nearly every registered user who flies a drone or model airplane.
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Mar 07, 2018, 05:12 PM
Suspended Account
The way I read it, yes, remote ID is to be mandated. But as yet there's no agreement as to how or even when. And there's still disagreement as far as any cutoff point leaving the possibility of some models, LOS for example, being exempt.

This tells me some decisions have been made. But the rest could still take 10 or even 20 years to complete and implement.

We keep up the letter campaign to our Congress Critters and the FAA and we may get a decent deal.
Mar 07, 2018, 05:27 PM
I'm not the pivot man
I have mentioned this in several posts in the past, recent and far past ..... a few poo-pawed me.
Mar 07, 2018, 06:14 PM
Commander, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
franklin_m's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by FusterCluck
I have mentioned this in several posts in the past, recent and far past ..... a few poo-pawed me.
Yep. And implicit in the discussion is that 336 is either going away or will be substantially watered down....
Mar 08, 2018, 09:37 AM
Registered User
Nice article. Thank you for sharing. I can see it now, a $200 transponder on a $50 slow stick, and nobody can use the information real time.
Mar 08, 2018, 10:02 AM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMK001
The way I read it, yes, remote ID is to be mandated. But as yet there's no agreement as to how or even when. And there's still disagreement as far as any cutoff point leaving the possibility of some models, LOS for example, being exempt.

This tells me some decisions have been made. But the rest could still take 10 or even 20 years to complete and implement.

We keep up the letter campaign to our Congress Critters and the FAA and we may get a decent deal.
Can't do any of this unless 336 is repealed or modified.
Last edited by Sport_Pilot; Mar 08, 2018 at 11:46 AM.
Mar 08, 2018, 10:38 AM
Destroyer of airframes
RTRyder's Avatar
There is a big push for repeal of 336 outright by some of the big boys. The sUAS coalition is the front for many of the industry interests and their main goal is to dump 336 so they can force through regulations that give them commercial access to the 500 foot and below airspace. Read the attached PDF file to see their latest push with Congress to give the FAA power over anything that flys within that chunk of airspace. If you're interested in who those industry players are behind sUAS, here's a screen shot of the corporate logos from the latest sUAS newsletter email...
Mar 08, 2018, 10:44 AM
Earth-bound misfit
Pontiac428's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvanM
Nice article. Thank you for sharing. I can see it now, a $200 transponder on a $50 slow stick, and nobody can use the information real time.
Ding ding ding, we have a winner!

Does this technology even exist in a form factor and at a price point that is feasible for a 400-gram airframe? How much of a battery burden will it be to transmit what is likely to be several watts of power to work with the existing communication infrastructure? Yeesh. Maybe the commercial drone guys can carry the weight, but they're under Part 107, not Section 336. And I still fly too low to give a care about interfering with traditional air traffic. Do my control line planes need it too?
Mar 08, 2018, 10:52 AM
musk the pedo
Without 336 AMA will not be needed at all.
Mar 08, 2018, 11:06 AM
Registered User
I see Google is behind it....that figures. Google is evil. And of course Amazon also wants to be rid of us. BTW, Jeff Bozos owns WaPo.
Hope y'all ready to start shelling out mo' money for the "privilege" to fly model airplanes. Like the privilege to drive on a road ( that we the tax payers paid for).
Pretty soon it will be a privilege to travel, a privilege to own a gun ...if at all, or the privilege to speech.
The frog continues to feel the water heating up around it but does nothing.
Mar 08, 2018, 11:13 AM
BFMAC Founding Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by jollyroger
I see Google is behind it....that figures. Google is evil. And of course Amazon also wants to be rid of us. BTW, Jeff Bozos owns WaPo.
Hope y'all ready to start shelling out mo' money for the "privilege" to fly model airplanes. Like the privilege to drive on a road ( that we the tax payers paid for).
Pretty soon it will be a privilege to travel, a privilege to own a gun ...if at all, or the privilege to speech.
The frog continues to feel the water heating up around it but does nothing.
Whatever/whoever is motivating it, I see it as better deal than federally sanctioned coercion by a private nCBO monopoly.
Mar 08, 2018, 11:37 AM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourtech
Without 336 AMA will not be needed at all.
Not quite true, because a great number of members are in it for the insurance requirement at their club field, and some only for event admission.
Mar 08, 2018, 11:42 AM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by abel pranger
Whatever/whoever is motivating it, I see it as better deal than federally sanctioned coercion by a private nCBO monopoly.
I think at some level the two mindsets merge and become equally frightening.
Mar 08, 2018, 11:47 AM
Registered User
It would appear that there are some folks here who want 336 to be repealed. I dont understand this thinking. It seems like this rule is the only thing keeping the barbarians from getting in the gates when it comes to recreational RC. I am not very knowledgeable about these topics (although I am trying to educate myself) Can someone please explain to me the thinking on 336. I think we want it.....am I incorrect? Thanks ahead of time for any input.
Mar 08, 2018, 11:49 AM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTRyder
There is a big push for repeal of 336 outright by some of the big boys. The sUAS coalition is the front for many of the industry interests and their main goal is to dump 336 so they can force through regulations that give them commercial access to the 500 foot and below airspace. Read the attached PDF file to see their latest push with Congress to give the FAA power over anything that flys within that chunk of airspace. If you're interested in who those industry players are behind sUAS, here's a screen shot of the corporate logos from the latest sUAS newsletter email...
FAA workers not happy with that, more work no people. The bureaucrats getting bribes is another matter.


Quick Reply
Message:

Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion If our models are officially "aircraft", shouldn't they be protected like "aircraft"? 3d4me Model Aircraft & Drone Advocacy 19 Jul 03, 2016 10:19 AM
Discussion "Drone" Registration INCLUDES all RC aircraft not just Multirotors Deserteagle Model Aircraft & Drone Advocacy 112 Dec 14, 2015 03:45 PM
Discussion Registration to include model aircraft matheweis Model Aircraft & Drone Advocacy 0 Oct 29, 2015 02:35 PM
Discussion Model airplanes vs. remotely piloted aircraft vs. unmanned aerial vehicles lectraplayer AMA (Academy of Model Aeronautics) 8 Oct 25, 2007 10:17 PM
Discussion Model Aircraft vs. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles vs. Remotely Piloted Aircraft lectraplayer AMA (Academy of Model Aeronautics) 1 Oct 11, 2007 12:44 PM